IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

W.P.No.19476 of 2012

P.Krishnan

...Petitioner

.Vs.

1.Inspector of Factories,

No.36, Sudhakar Nagar,

Salamedu,

Vizhudhareddy Post,

Villupuram – 605602.

2.The Commissioner of Sugars,

Office of the Commissioner of Sugars,

No.474, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600035.

3.The Management,

Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills,

Rep. by its Administrator,

Periyasevalai – 607209.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in

Na.Ka.No.22384/sa.tho.1/99 dated 12.08.2000 on the file of

the second respondent and quashing the same and further to

direct the third respondent to calculate the salary of the

petitioner without reducing the basic pay to the initial

stage and pay the same to the petitioner.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.S.Hariprasad

For Respondents

:

Mr.R.Bala Ramesh [R3]

No Appearance [R1 & R2]

ORDER

Based on charges against the petitioner that he had

taken the photocopies of certain Registers belonging to

the third respondent/Management and forwarded the same to

the Inspector of Factories, the petitioner was proceeded

with departmental action and accordingly, the third

respondent herein, in his proceedings dated 22.04.1999,

had imposed the punishment of fixing his basic pay of

salary at the initial stage. This punishment came to be

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

modified by the second respondent herein in the order in

Appeal dated 12.08.2000 whereby, the punishment to

calculate his salary on the basic pay at initial stage was

restricted to three years. Challenging the same, the

present writ petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that under Section 111A(iii) of the Factories Act, the

worker will have a right to represent to the Inspector of

Labour directly or through his representative in the

matter of inadequate provisions for protection or safety

in the factory and under Section 9(d), The Inspector of

Labour has the power to direct the Management to produce

any document relating to factories or seize such

documents. Hence, he submitted that the charges against

the petitioner is not a misconduct.

3. These provisions have no nexus with the charge

that is leveled against the petitioner. The very charge

states that the petitioner herein had forwarded the

photocopies of certain registers which are the properties

of the Management and sent the same to the Inspector of

Labour without the permission of the Management. In case

the petitioner had any grievance in provisions of

protection or safety, then he would have an option to give

a complaint to the Inspector of Labour, under Section 111A

of the Act. But the present delinquency does not relate

to matters of protection or safety in the Factory. Thus,

taking of photocopies of the properties of the Management

without their permission, is a misconduct.

4. Though the original punishment imposed by the

third respondent could be termed as disproportionate to

the leveled charges, the modified punishment by the second

respondent herein, restricting the fixation of his scale

of pay at the initial level for three years, seems to be

in proportion to the charges. As such, I do not find any

infirmity in the modified punishment.

5. In the light of the above findings, I do not find any

merits in this Writ Petition and hence, the same stands

dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

Sni

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

To

1.Inspector of Factories,

No.36, Sudhakar Nagar,

Salamedu,

Vizhudhareddy Post,

Villupuram – 605602.

2.The Commissioner of Sugars,

Office of the Commissioner of Sugars,

No.474, Anna S